Auke, List:
AvB: You seem to forget that 'the interpretant of a sign' differs from the
'interpretant sign', which in itself is a full blown sign, in need of its
own qualisign, sinsign, etc, etc, and interpretant aspects.
Why would you say that? We have not been talking about a series of
interpretant signs within the continuous process of semeiosis, but rather
the three different interpretants as distinguished by analysis in
speculative grammar. Moreover, not all signs have further signs as their
dynamical interpretants (usuals); some produce exertions (percussives),
while others produce only feelings (sympathetics).
AvB: ... the structure is given for the interpretant regarded as a sign 1.
A; 2. B. a.b.; 3. C. abc.
That structure is given for *any sign whatsoever*, as follows (R
339:386[253r], 1905 Oct 8).
- A is the "Division according to the matter of the sign," S =
qualisign/sinsign/legisign.
- Under B are the "Divisions according to the Object."
- B.a is "According to the Immediate Object (how represented)," Oi =
indefinite/singular/distributively general.
- Under B.b are the divisions "According to the Dynamic Object."
- B.b.α is according to the "Matter of the Dynamic Object," Od =
abstract/concrete/collection.
- B.b.β is according to the "Mode of representing object," Od-S =
icon/index/symbol.
- Under C are the "Division[s] according to Interpretant."
- C.a is "According to Immediate Interpretant (How represented)," Ii
= clamatory/imperative/representative.
- Under C.b are the divisions "According to Dynamic Interpretant."
- C.b.α is according to the "Matter of Dynamic Interpretant," Id =
feeling/conduct/thought.
- C.b.β is according to the "Mode of Affecting Dynamic Interp.,"
S-Id = by sympathy/compulsion/reason.
- Under C.c are the divisions "According to Representative
Interpretant."
- C.c.α is according to the "Matter of Representative Interpretant,"
If.
- C.c.β is according to the "Mode of being represented by
Representative Interpretant," S-If.
- C.c.γ is according to the "Mode of being represented to
represent its object by Repr. Interp.," Od-S-If.
These are the same ten trichotomies that Peirce consistently identifies
between 1905 and 1909. The terminology varies over that time--"dynamic"
vs. "dynamical," the names of the three interpretants, and the names of the
classes within each division--but the overall scheme remains unchanged.
Francesco Bellucci discusses what was basically the very last wrinkle on
pp. 346-347 of his book, *Peirce's Speculative Grammar: Logic as
Semiotic*--the
suggestion of a hierarchical rather than linear order.
CSP: The light which the 2 trichotomies referred to in the last paragraph
but one above [Od-S and S-Id] throw upon each other suggests a method of
study that I have hitherto employed only in getting as clear ideas as I
have (and they ought to be more definite) of the 1st and 2nd trichotomies
[S and Oi] or (using the excellent notation of 1905 Oct 12) A and Ba. I am
now applying the same method to Bbβ and Cbβ. It ought to be applied not
merely to A and Ba but further to A, Ba, and Ca taken together. Also to A
Ba Bbα to A Ba Cbα to Bbα Cbα. Then to A Bβ Ccγ etc. to Ba Bbα Ccα to A
Bbα Ccα etc. (R 339:541[360r], 1909 Nov 1)
The designations here are the same as above, although the reference is to a
longer entry in the Logic Notebook written a few days later. As Bellucci
summarizes, "the ten trichotomies are arranged in a *tree-structure*, not
as a *linear succession,*" but "Peirce never managed to apply to his
tenfold taxonomy of signs the new step-by-step method." Bellucci does not
attempt to do so himself; and as far as I know, no one else has tried yet
either.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 4:18 AM <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote:
> Jon Allen,
>
> You seem to forget that 'the interpretant of a sign' differs from the
> 'interpretant sign', which in itself is a full blown sign, in need of its
> own qualisign, sinsign, etc, etc, and interpretant aspects. In the page
> <https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/preview.php?from=search&ref=13283>-
> (What a progress, i had to search the dusty corners of dusty university
> rooms in order to delve up the micro-fiche edition and have it printed) the
> structure is given for the interpretant regarded as a sign 1. A; 2. B.
> a.b.; 3. C. abc.
>
> best,
>
> Auke
>
> Op 21 april 2020 om 3:37 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt <
> jonalanschm...@gmail.com>:
>
> Auke, List:
>
> AvB: You state that Peirce maintains that there are exactly three
> interpretants and your proof seems to be that you nowhere found more than
> three *names* for interpretants in the same passage.
>
> Indeed, I believe that if Peirce had held that there were more than three
> interpretants, he would have said so somewhere explicitly. Instead, he
> experimented with various combinations of different names for *exactly
> three* interpretants, the most consistent of which are
> immediate/dynamical/final. Emotional/energetic/logical only appear in the
> drafts for "Pragmatism" (1907), and again, I see them as aligning directly
> with the *divisions* according to the dynamical and final interpretants
> in other late taxonomies as sympathetic/percussive/usual and
> gratific/actuous/temperative, respectively.
>
> The division according the mode of presentation of the immediate
> interpretant as hypothetic/categorical/relative is admittedly not so
> straightforward. Peirce proposes it in a December 1908 draft letter to
> Lady Welby "with great hesitation" (CP 8.369, EP 2:489), even though it
> appears in his Logic Notebook as early as August 1906 (R
> 339:423-424[284r-285r]). Of course, the adjectives themselves are commonly
> used for three different kinds of *propositions* (CP 2.271, 1903), which
> are distinguished in existential graphs (EGs) by how many lines of identity
> each requires--zero, one, and two or more, respectively.
>
> CSP: Also note that by this system every proposition is either
> hypothetical, categorical, or relative, according to the number of heavy
> lines necessary to express its form. (R 481:10, LF 1:290, 1896).
>
> However, an EG with no lines of identity can express a hypothetical
> proposition only in the *alpha* system. The *beta* system recognizes
> that such a proposition is "expressed in precisely the same form" as a
> categorical proposition (CP 3.445, 1896), while a spot with no lines of
> identity attached is an *incomplete* proposition--i.e., a term or rheme,
> whose number of pegs matches its valency (CP 4.560, 1906). Therefore, the
> division according to the immediate interpretant must come *before *the
> division according to the nature of the influence of the sign; i.e., its
> relation to the final interpretant. This properly ensures that all
> hypothetics are terms/semes, while all propositions/phemes are either
> categoricals or relatives.
>
> Moreover, the sheet of assertion in EGs is strictly a *logical*
> quasi-mind, so it can only be determined by signs whose dynamical
> interpretants are further signs; i.e., usuals. Therefore, the division
> according to the mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant must
> come *after* the division according to the mode of being of the dynamical
> interpretant, such that a usual can be a hypothetic, a categorical, or a
> relative. My proposed *logical *order of determination for the three
> interpretant trichotomies (If→Id→Ii) is consistent with this, while Robert
> Marty's (Ii→Id→If) is not.
>
> AvB: I follow Van Driel. Who followed, without knowledge of it, the
> division according to interpretants in: *Logic Notebook entry dated 8
> oct. 1905; Ms 339 p. 253r*
>
> But Peirce again identifies *exactly three* interpretants on that
> manuscript page
> <https://rs.cms.hu-berlin.de/peircearchive/pages/preview.php?from=search&ref=13283>--immediate,
> dynamic, and representative. His trichotomies on this occasion are
> clamatory/imperative/representative for the immediate interpretant and
> feeling/conduct/thought for the dynamic interpretant, while he does not
> assign any names for the representative interpretant. The other three
> listed divisions are for the interpretant *relations*--"Mode of Affecting
> Dynamic Interp." (S-Id), which is "By Sympathy," "By Compulsion," or "By
> Reason"; "Mode of being represented by Representative Interpretant" (S-If);
> and "Mode of being represented to represent object by Repr. Interp."
> (Od-S-If).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:14 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl>
> wrote:
>
> Jon Alan,
>
> This is a highly curious way of thinking of yours. You state that Peirce
> maintains that there are exactly three interpretants and your proof seems
> to be that you nowhere found more than three *names* for interpretants in
> the same passage.
>
> It is nice to find that we agree upon at least one thing, i.e. we have
> Peirce's, your's and my take on the interpretants. I ragard them as three
> immediate objects that try to capture the process of semiosis as regarded
> the dynamical object.
>
> JAS: there is arguably a sense in which I posit *nine *different
> interpretants. However, I strongly prefer *not *to characterize them
> that way
>
> If I understand the passage right you follow Shorts orthogonal
> arrangement, Zeman entertaning a more sober arrangement with only six
> interpretants. I follow Van Driel. Who followed, without knowledge of it,
> the division according to interpretants in:
>
> *Logic Notebook entry dated 8 oct. 1905; Ms 339 p. 253r*
>
> Best,
>
> Auke
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
